Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Virgin birth

2»

Comments

  • #52
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    It hink a few peopkle here are a little confused.

    According to the Bible, Jesus's birth wasn't a virgin birth at all and it's only in latter day translations that this was interpreted..

    Mary's birth was a virgin birth, "The immacualte conception of mary" because only someone who was pure and free from original sin would be worthy to give birth to our lord and savior.

    The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.


  • #53
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    psi wrote: »
    It hink a few peopkle here are a little confused.

    According to the Bible, Jesus's birth wasn't a virgin birth at all and it's only in latter day translations that this was interpreted..

    Mary's birth was a virgin birth, "The immacualte conception of mary" because only someone who was pure and free from original sin would be worthy to give birth to our lord and savior.

    The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.

    You are the one who is confused. You appear to be unable to distinguish between the virgin birth (the biblical doctrine that Mary had no sexual intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus) and the Immaculate Conception (the nonbiblical Catholic doctrine that Mary was herself born without original sin, although as a result of normal sexual intercourse on the part of Mary's parents).

    My only confusion is why somebody would post on a subject that they apparently know nothing about. :confused:

    The earliest extant New Testament manuscripts (in the original Greek, so not translations) include the virgin birth. There is no evidence (none, zilch, zero, nada) of any earlier versions that did not include the virgin birth. The idea that the doctrine of the virgin birth was only introduced in 'latter day' translations is breathtakingly ignorant and totally without any historical or textual support.


  • #54
    Spyral
    Closed Accounts Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Spyral


    who wrote it and how do they know she was a virgin ? was she given a gynecological exam ?

    i think that tradition has it that she was a temple virgin servant type thing and that old widows would marry them to have them as house keepers and to help them but also to look after them for the temple.

    dont ask me where i heard that from cannae remember


  • #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    My only confusion is why somebody would post on a subject that they apparently know nothing about. :confused:

    I ask that question about the Creationist thread every day :p


  • #56
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    psi said:
    The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.
    Back to basics - just read what the Biblical account of Christ's conception says:
    Luke 1:30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
    34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
    35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

    Note Mary's question and the angel's reply. A virgin conception.

    And she continued a virgin until Jesus was born:
    Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
    22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
    24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

    Note the penultimate verse - and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. Mary had no sex until after the birth of Jesus.


  • #57
    JoeB-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is the right of the parent to bring up their children in a particular faith.

    You're on shaky ground here.... children aren't the property of the parents.

    For example is it acceptable for a parent to bring their children up believing that the sun is a God and that humans must be sacrificed in order to propogate it? Or that witches fly at night and curse people? Or that strange creatures live in the bog that have magical powers? (If you object please explain why these aren't valid faith systems).

    Or that blood tranfusions are bad or evil and that it is preferable to die rather than receive one? (I would love to hear your explanation as to how that doesn't put lives at risk as surely as if the parents teach that cars aren't really there and it is ok to walk in front of them)

    Or that black people are inferior to white people and that it is fine to slaughter them?

    All of the above beliefs are held by (some) parents but we'd be in a bad way as a society if parents were free to take advantage of their childrens gullibility and teach them those beliefs as if they were as valid as the belief that the Earth is round.

    You seem to treat children as property of parents... it is clearly NOT ok for parents to beat their children... or to lock them in a basement and deny them sunlight... it is even illegal to deny them a proper education...

    So in summary, if parents insist on denying what is considered true (by science etc) and instead try to force their own (unprovable and crazy) beliefs on the children it is wrong and the children should be taken away and cared for.

    Parents have obligations to care for the children, not rights to do whatever they want, that is an important distinction.

    This goes for denying evolution and instead trying to teach creationism as fact when it clearly goes against science...


  • #58
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Joe: The same could be said with bringing a child up secular in certain circumstances.


  • #59
    JoeB-
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    Jackass.

    I don't agree... consider unnecessary medical interventions... Jewish boys are circumcised for no medical reason, simply a religious belief. This isn't too bad I don't think but it is still an unnecessary medical intervention.

    And what about female mutilation? (i.e female 'circumcision'). This is clearly unnecessary, and is a mutilation of the young girls body. Obviously the government should send parents to jail who exist on carrying it out.

    Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

    The point is that parents are free to believe whatever they want but their children should be protected from parents.

    The belief that blood tranfusions are 'wrong' results in death in some cases... so there you go. You may have seen the guy on discovery channel who has a tumor larger than his head on his face.. he refuses an operation because a blood transfusion is required.. so he has to live with a large tumor which puts his health at risk. Simply because of his religion.

    Also please elaborate on how bringing a child up secular can damage the child in any circumstance?


  • #60
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    Jackass. I don't agree... consider unnecessary medical interventions... Jewish boys are circumcised for no medical reason, simply a religious belief. This isn't too bad I don't think but it is still an unnecessary medical intervention.

    In America boys are regularly circumcised regardless of religion. It's seen as purely a health issue.

    "The American Urological Association (2007) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. In the context of HIV studies carried out in Africa, the AUA states that while "the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection," the AUA "recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits." (Wiki)
    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    And what about female mutilation? (i.e female 'circumcision'). This is clearly unnecessary, and is a mutilation of the young girls body. Obviously the government should send parents to jail who exist on carrying it out.

    A horrible practice as it is, I fail to see it's relevance to Christianity in Ireland.
    Indeed, according to Wiki "Although FGC is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures, FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice."

    Circumcision and FGC! Man alive, I've been looking up some odd stuff on Wiki.
    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

    As above, I would argue that tattooing is more a cultural practice than a strictly religious one. Admittedly I've seen children - young toddlers no less - with their ears pierced in Dublin on a few occasions. However, there is nothing to suggest that this had anything to do with the parents religious beliefs.
    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    You may have seen the guy on discovery channel who has a tumor larger than his head on his face.. he refuses an operation because a blood transfusion is required.. so he has to live with a large tumor which puts his health at risk. Simply because of his religion.

    As ridiculous a decision as it may seem to the rest of us it's his choice. Besides, lets not get all puritanical here (excuse the phrase). One could level the same health risk argument at those who smoke, drink to excess or take vast quantities of drugs.
    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    Also please elaborate on how bringing a child up secular can damage the child in any circumstance?

    If they grew up with the same level of intolerance that you seem to display then I would argue that they have already been damaged.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

    Tattoos are forbidden both in Christianity and Judaism, depending on how you regard the Law of Moses. I wouldn't anyway.


Advertisement